Game version 3.007 discussion: Bf109K4, P47D28, Camel, Pfalz, FM, Multiplayer, Damage and more

[=RS=Stix_09]

16 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

Hi all,

I got a small problem since the new patch : I can't access anymore to stats by shortcut keyboard in game.

Am I the only one...? 

 

You mean default TAB key? (single player or mutiplayer?)

BTW you can also get stats from pressing ESC key and its on menu

[Tag777]

8 hours ago, =AWACS=CG_Justin said:

 

I'm pretty sure the USAAF used three types in the M2 historically during WW2, AP, API, and APIT. I'm not sure what type(s) is modeled in the sim though.

I want to mean there is only one type in game. Your data are correct. My mistake.

[Legioneod]

On 11/21/2018 at 12:57 AM, Bloodsplatter said:

Does anyone know where the undercarriage indicator is on the P47. I had a bloke look but can't find it.

 

On 11/21/2018 at 1:59 AM, LukeFF said:

 

Doesn't have one.

 

Yes it does, left of the gun sight is a warning light for the landing gear.

 

EDIT

Here:

Edited November 22, 2018 by Legioneod

[Matt]

That's not an undercarriage position indicator.

 

It will just warn you that the gear is still down when going full throttle or that the gear is still up when you're at low power.

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, Matt said:

That's not an undercarriage position indicator.

 

It will just warn you that the gear is still down when going full throttle or that the gear is still up when you're at low power.

Still indicates your gear, it's up to you to know the situation. It's a good enough indicator for me.

[Aap]

I suppose you could see if your gear is up or down from the landing gear lever position on left side of cockpit? 

It's not the same as a proper gear position indicator, but can still check from there, if you don't remember, if you had used the control or not.

Edited November 22, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[LLv24_Zami]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Except for the fact that some of us want an accurate simulation with all the advantages and disadvantages, while others just want their aircraft/side to be the best while the other side suffers.

 

The fact is, I want an accurate representation of these aircraft, if the Jug is overperforming is certain regards it needs to be changed, same for the K4 if it's underperfroming and vice versa.

I don't have a side in this fight, I just want an accurate representation of the aircraft, no matter what side it's for.

Except except yes yes yes.. I am the right and others are wrong etc..

 

Makes two of us then who like accurate models for planes. But I don`t go around calling people whiners because they have different view on something, like some do here. That`s the point.

Edited November 22, 2018 by LLv24_Zami

[JonRedcorn]

The devs should of brought out bodenplatte years ago this sim would be filled with even more players. Can't ignore the draw these aircraft have. The p-47 alone is bringing in tons of people. Old russian war planes only bring so many people. I think some newer yaks would be more enticing, yak-3 yak-9 yaka, yaka. But keep the focus up, don't rush anything, the quality is here. That's evident.

Edited November 22, 2018 by 15th_JonRedcorn

[fjacobsen]

4 hours ago, Bies said:

Great update. Thud is fantastic. And for people complaining about some details - that's an early access.

The best thing is turbosupercharger being modeled as separate module with separate controls - i thing for the frst time in a simulator.

 

It´s not the first time...

 

A2A's P-47 D20/22/23 for FSX also has this.

Edited November 22, 2018 by fjacobsen

[JonRedcorn]

Just now, fjacobsen said:

 

It´s not the first time...

 

A2A's P-47D20/22/23 for FSX also has this.

How is that by the way, the only disappointing thing is it's in FSX....

[fjacobsen]

Just now, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

How is that by the way, the only disappointing thing is it's in FSX....

 

It was really great (I have moved to P3D V4 and uninstalled FSX).

Not sure if they will port it to P3D V4, but hope so.

[JonRedcorn]

Just now, fjacobsen said:

 

It was really great (I have moved to P3D V4 and uninstalled FSX).

Not sure if they will port it to P3D V4, but hope so.

Is there anything to do with it besides fly it around?

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, fjacobsen said:

 

It was really great (I have moved to P3D V4 and uninstalled FSX).

Not sure if they will port it to P3D V4, but hope so.

AFAIK it is planned that are porting it over to P3D v4. You can copy the directories manually tom P3D. Up until P3D v3 that worked rather welll and even the updaters worked, but in v4 things get messy.

 

So far they ported (and polished!) the Spitfire and the Mustang to P3Dv4. The Stratocruiser is also planned. Little hope for the Cub though

 

[Rjel]

10 hours ago, lord_certalic said:

I’m so glad I made that comment then! I’ve been lurking this thread, hoping for someone to bring up this pretty glaring issue. 

I had the same experience. The Jug feels more fragile than a 109. 

Don't lurk, more input from more members never hurts. If you have an opinion, you should feel free to voice it. You've paid for the privilege. 

[fjacobsen]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

AFAIK it is planned that are porting it over to P3D v4. You can copy the directories manually tom P3D. Up until P3D v3 that worked rather welll and even the updaters worked, but in v4 things get messy.

 

So far they ported (and polished!) the Spitfire and the Mustang to P3Dv4. The Stratocruiser is also planned. Little hope for the Cub though

 

 

Just to update...

 

Spitfire MkI & II, P-51D Mustang and P-40 Warhawk has been ported to P3D V4 now, the P-40 even with rain effect (which will be added to the others too.

I don´t think the Stratocruiser will come anytime soon, but the Constellation is available.

 

And NO... there is nothing else to do in these FSX/P3D warbirds than flying around and use them as high performance GA aircraft.

 

Now we better move back to Il-2 BOX.........

[Jade_Monkey]

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

It just doesnt make sense that the wing is so weak in-game, it's nearly impossible to take a wing off with MGs irl, much less one that is as sturdy as a P-47s.

DM needs some serious work imo.

 

Yeah it's a bit odd, especially since those wings are strong enough to carry that much ordinance.

[CrazyGman]

 

57 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

Yeah it's a bit odd, especially since those wings are strong enough to carry that much ordinance.

Guys it's got 2 wing spars same as most planes, it's not really any more robust then a Spits wing. It's not made from magic FDR alluminum.

 

Yes there are accounts with planes comming back with severly damaged wings but plenty of planes had that happen. It's the exception...not the rule

[SJ_Butcher]

Dear guys, do you know if the new planes are already at 4k textures cockpit/fuselage? 

[Essex477Neilpeel1959]

The realism playing in VR is insane! Engine oil on the googles took me completely by surprise. Fantastic work thank you!

[StarLightSong]

Jug is a flying tank, or should be, it’s certainly no Swallow.

[LizLemon]

Is it just me or is the LOD transition between trees now more noticeable? Before with ssao enabled it was almost impossible to spot the difference between the LOD0 and LOD1 tree switch and now the change looks like the last patch without ssao even though I have it on.

[Legioneod]

49 minutes ago, =SqSq=CrazyGman said:

 

Guys it's got 2 wing spars same as most planes, it's not really any more robust then a Spits wing. It's not made from magic FDR alluminum.

 

Yes there are accounts with planes comming back with severly damaged wings but plenty of planes had that happen. It's the exception...not the rule

Machine Guns wouldn't be able to saw off a wing in-combat (at least no very commonly), 20mm and 30mm sure but not machine guns.  The problem isnt that 20mm or 30mm are taking the wings off, the problem is that machine guns do it, and way too often. 

 

If you look at the design of a P-47 wing and a Spitfire wing you'll notice a difference.

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Legioneod

[CrazyGman]

11 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Machine Guns wouldn't be able to saw off a wing in-combat (at least no very commonly), 20mm and 30mm sure but not machine guns.  The problem isnt that 20mm or 30mm are taking the wings off, the problem is that machine guns do it, and way too often. 

 

If you look at the design of a P-47 wing and a Spitfire wing you'll notice a difference.

 

Which machine guns are takeing it off?

 

I've looked at both wings from cutaway diagrams not that much difference and the P-40 has 3 main spars (granted smaller) but no one has issues with it.

It a fighter guys, not an attack plane. Could it do the job of atracking half-way decent just like the FW 190 yes. Is it a dedicated attack plane like the Il-2? no.

Edited November 22, 2018 by =SqSq=CrazyGman

[Otto_bann]

4 hours ago, Otto_bann said:

Hi all,

I got a small problem since the new patch : I can't access anymore to stats by shortcut keyboard in game.

Am I the only one...? 

4 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

You mean default TAB key? (single player or mutiplayer?)

BTW you can also get stats from pressing ESC key and its on menu

Thanks for the answer.

Since all time when I flew in multiplayer session, I used a simple shortcut to get in and out statistics. Now I have to hit Esc and scrolling to statistics and push Enter for finaly hit Escape for turn back in game...  Less practical :(

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, =SqSq=CrazyGman said:

Is it a dedicated attack plane like the Il-2 no

It was a better ground attack aircraft than the Il-2, had a larger bombload and was much faster.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, fjacobsen said:

nd NO... there is nothing else to do in these FSX/P3D warbirds than flying around and use them as high performance GA aircraft.

That's good already.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, =SqSq=CrazyGman said:

 

Guys it's got 2 wing spars same as most planes, it's not really any more robust then a Spits wing. It's not made from magic FDR alluminum.

 

Yes there are accounts with planes comming back with severly damaged wings but plenty of planes had that happen. It's the exception...not the rule

It not only has 2 wing spars, it has 3 auxillary spars and large number of ribs

 

 

This forms a very dense honeycomb structure that is not only incredibly strong but has lots of redundancy. It also acts as a form of protection as the uncritical sections act as spaced armour for the critical spars from blast damage.

 

If we look at examples of hits to the P-47s wing

 

The auxiliary spar and aft main spar are both clearly visible. The flaps, auxiliary spar, and ribs have clearly been destroyed, but they absorbed enough of the energy of the blast that the aft main spar was protected. The aircraft;s wing did not fall off from ground fire.

Similar story with this picture, again from AA ground fire. The rear uncritical structural elements managed to absorb the energy from the shell, and while the spar is bent, it is not broken


More examples

 

 

 

Now compare P-40 cutaway with P-47 cutaway

 

P-40's wing has far more empty spaces then the P-47's, the ribs are spaced wider apart and no auxiliary spars.

 

Using the argument P-47 has only 2 spars so therefore P-47's wing no more stronger as nearly every other aircraft ingame is too simplistic

Edited November 22, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Diggun]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Machine Guns wouldn't be able to saw off a wing in-combat

I don't think that's what we're seeing though. What I think we often see is:

 

Victim takes burst of machine gun fire through wing

Victim continues manoeuvring aggressively 

Victim over-g's / stresses weakened wing structure

Victim waves goodbye to Essential Piece of Wing

 

Now, the above can all happen in a few fractions of a second, appearing to you like you've sawn the wing off, when in fact you've done nothing of the sort.... 

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Diggun said:

I don't think that's what we're seeing though. What I think we often see is:

 

Victim takes burst of machine gun fire through wing

Victim continues manoeuvring aggressively 

Victim over-g's / stresses weakened wing structure

Victim waves goodbye to Essential Piece of Wing

 

Now, the above can all happen in a few fractions of a second, appearing to you like you've sawn the wing off, when in fact you've done nothing of the sort.... 

In the test I've run I had the P-47 flying level for the most part (on the same team) I was able to shoot the wing off with Mgs most of the time, never used cannons until the last test and it only took a single cannon round.

 

EDIT

Also, MGs wouldnt be able to cause enough damage by themselves to weaken the structure enough to lose a wing, even in more strenuous maneuvers.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Legioneod

[Diggun]

8 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

P-40's wing has far more empty spaces then the P-47's,

Empty space is a good thing though - nothing important to hit / detonate cannon shells. See also Hurricane fuselage survive-ability / serviceability after damage compared with Spitfires....

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Also, MGs wouldnt be able to cause enough damage by themselves to weaken the structure enough to lose a wing, even in more strenuous maneuvers.

Oh, right, case closed in that case then. Thanks for clearing that up!

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 minute ago, Diggun said:

Empty space is a good thing though - nothing important to hit / detonate cannon shells. See also Hurricane fuselage survive-ability / serviceability after damage compared with Spitfires....

We are talking about metal skinned aircraft whose skin will nearly always detonate a HE shell.

[Memphis]

3 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

We are talking about metal skinned aircraft whose skin will nearly always detonate a HE shell.

You might want to Google what makes Minengeschosse so powerful.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

14 minutes ago, Memphis said:

You might want to Google what makes Minengeschosse so powerful.

Don't think you can use the Spitfires wing as a valid comparson to what Minengeshoss would do a P-47s wing


P-47's wing's compartmentalized multicellular construction is much more effective at containing blast damage. Providing a direct hit to one of the spars, there are still the auxiliary spars there to keep the wing.

Edited November 22, 2018 by RoflSeal

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

52 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Machine Guns wouldn't be able to saw off a wing in-combat (at least no very commonly), 20mm and 30mm sure but not machine guns.  The problem isnt that 20mm or 30mm are taking the wings off, the problem is that machine guns do it, and way too often. 

 

If you look at the design of a P-47 wing and a Spitfire wing you'll notice a difference.

Hey Legioneod, here is the video I was speaking of. Got permission from author to post it, so there it is:

 

Now, machine gun can cut wing off. I saw a video with Betty loosing 1/3 of its wing after Hellcat hit it. But it is not easy and depends which part of the wing is being it. Inner section would probably sooner expload after ammo boxes were hit then wing spar would be cut. 

Speaking of wingspar differences, how much does Il-2 wing differ from P-47 in terms of wingspars, ribs and skin thickness ? 

[Legioneod]

14 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Hey Legioneod, here is the video I was speaking of. Got permission from author to post it, so there it is:

 

Now, machine gun can cut wing off. I saw a video with Betty loosing 1/3 of its wing after Hellcat hit it. But it is not easy and depends which part of the wing is being it. Inner section would probably sooner expload after ammo boxes were hit then wing spar would be cut. 

Speaking of wingspar differences, how much does Il-2 wing differ from P-47 in terms of wingspars, ribs and skin thickness ? 

 

I couldn't tell you much about the il2 unfortunately but I know it's wing construction is robust like the Jug, the P-47 and Il2 are nearly the same size, Il2 has a little bit longer wingspan.

 

Here's a cutaway that I found though.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Legioneod

[MiloMorai]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the attack on Robert Johnson's P-47 by a Fw190A attesting the ruggedness of the P-47.

 

"When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had 21 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets."

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

21 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

 

Now, machine gun can cut wing off. I saw a video with Betty loosing 1/3 of its wing after Hellcat hit it. But it is not easy and depends which part of the wing is being it. Inner section would probably sooner expload after ammo boxes were hit then wing spar would be cut. 

 Speaking of wingspar differences, how much does Il-2 wing differ from P-47 in terms of wingspars, ribs and skin thickness ? 

P-47's ammunition boxes extend to the outer wing

This picture shows the ammunition is compartmentalised and probably the reason the cover blew off was because of secondary explosions caused by the ammunition. You can actually see the aft main spar in this picture and it has been definitely bent, and looks like to have broken. Either way, the main spar and auxiliary spars were able to keep the wing together.

 

9 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I couldn't tell you much about the il2 unfortunately but I know it's wing construction is robust like the Jug, the P-47 and Il2 are nearly the same size, Il2 has a little bit longer wingspan.

 

Here's a cutaway that I found though.

 

 

 

 

 

The Il-2 wing structure as a lot of large lightening holes in its ribs, as you can see in the picture. The P-47 has almost none of that in the outer wing section and small circular holes in the inner wing section. It also lacks the redundancy offered by the auxiliary spars. The hollow ribs are a great way to keep strength high and lose a lot of weight (after all you are cutting out 50%+ of the material but are poor in containing blast damage.

Edited November 22, 2018 by RoflSeal

[MiloMorai]

Design analysis of the P-47

 http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

[Memphis]

19 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Don't think you can use the Spitfires wing as a valid comparson to what Minengeshoss would do a P-47s wing


P-47's wing's compartmentalized multicellular construction is much more effective at containing blast damage. Providing a direct hit to one of the spars, there are still the auxiliary spars there to keep the wing.

I was referring to the "the metal skin will almost always detonate HE shells". Since you were arguing towards the sturdiness of the P-47 you are also referring to Minengeschosse, which almost always detonate after penetrating the hull.

 

Your answer to my post ignores that absolutely. 

 

Also: Minengeschosse are firing with 9-13 round per minute. It's quite common that a round will enter an already blasted part of the wing. 

[PainGod85]

9 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I couldn't tell you much about the il2 unfortunately but I know it's wing construction is robust like the Jug, the P-47 and Il2 are nearly the same size, Il2 has a little bit longer wingspan.

 

Here's a cutaway that I found though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the sturdiness of the IL-2 compared to the P-47, consider this:

 

The P-47's empty weight is around 200 kg more than the IL-2's, and it has substantially less armor protecting the engine and cooling system as well.

We also know the load bearing parts on the P-47's wing could take each the weight of a 1000 lb bomb, which - again - the IL-2 couldn't lug around.

 

And we certainly know the P-47's wing has two main spars in addition to three auxiliary spars.

 

Also consider the P-47 didn't have internal bomb bays in its wings to potentially weaken the structure, and the ammunition bins were sandwiched in between the two main spars.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm